Hercules

Drag racers don't have skills!

*pushes zoom's buttons*

1.3 liter

I saw a 350Z in the showroom of my local Nissan dealer and I looked at it's interior finish as well as the exterior, and I had to say that I dissappointed in the quality of materials. Even when I compared it to the old 90-96 300ZX whose interior was a lot more classy and materials more refined, I was not impressed by the new Z's accoutraments. On the other hand, the RX-8 interior, from what I read from Mazda, will be a mixture of different textures. I wonder though if Mazda plans to create it's dash using polyurathane, which I hope they will do because it's thickness can be as much as you like, it's tough, and it has a great feel. I recently had the chance to sit my hinnie in an '03 Mercedes-Benz E500 that had those new polyurathane dashes and the feel of it was exquisite. I know in the past, that I and a lot of others complained about the lateness of the RX-8's arrival, but I must admit this: I am glad that Mazda is going to do this thing right, they are a car company that excites the senses as well as providing awesome performance, and sometimes you have to wait in order for a total package to be complete. Don't get me wrong, I like the 350Z, but unlike the RX-8 ( which is a new thinking in automobiles) the Z is made up of parts from Nissan's parts ben, and for some people that's fine, but for me it's only....acceptable.

Hercules

I agree with that conclusion, and let me add...

The word of the day is: accoutraments. :D

1.3 liter

Every now and then Hercules, I can blab a big word.

zoom44

hmmmm.... no pics of the rear on the website. :p

Iceman

I haven't seen the interior of a Z, but the car as a whole is an all-new platform for Nissan. The Z and the G35 are different variations of this platform, with the Z obviously built for performance. Judging from the photographs, I'm not a huge fan of the RX-8's interior either. It looks kinda "boy racer" to me. I am hoping that the real thing is better than the photos. P.S. I need 4 doors and a real back seat, and I want to stay under $30k, so the Z/G35 cars don't work for me.

m477

Ok, I guess there's SOME people that want the 8 more (which is good since this is the RX-8 forum :p )

But you have to admit, there are many people on this site that are looking forward to the new 7 at least as much as the new 8.

droidekaus

I must admit, I'm not a fan of the straight on rear shot, but I do like this angle from my site. :D

Hercules

Dunno, it still looks like it's missing something.

The best view of the 350Z is the front in my opinion.. the rear end is bass ackwards

zoom44

yeah i meant straight on from the rear and i was talking about your site. your site looks pretty good, i'll have to do something like that when i get my car. the car looks ok from that angle but i have to agree with herc- it definetly looks better from front angles. and it looks better in black and white too :p

roachman

I believe it comes down to daily driver vs. 2nd car.

If the car is your only car. Get the RX-8. If you have the money for 2 cars, get the Z. (assuming you like the styling of both).

I have a Porsche Boxster as a second car. It is a great second car. But can NEVER be a only car... If you have a family.

If you have a family and only want one car the RX-8 wins as a TRUE sports car with 4 REAL seats!

I look at the 911 and I bougth the Boxster because like the 911, most sports cars have "fake" back seat and no trunk. At least the Boxster has TWO half trunks.

I will sell the Boxster and my Land Rover and purchase the RX-8. I get first pick at my dealership at MSRP!!! I cannot wait for the Detroit auto show for more info!!

Roachman

Quick_lude

It's kinda neat how the Z roofline angle is the same as the taillights..
Personally from pics only I prefer the Mazda interior. I don't care much for the rear seats but it's good to know that I will have that option, just like in my present car. For me the big thing is the weight of the car.. 300 or so extra lbs must affect the "feel" of the car.. I already think my Prelude is heavy enough and it's at about 2960lbs.. I will try both when I'm in the market in spring 2004 but from what I've seen/read RX-8 for me please.

roachman

I believe it comes down to daily driver vs. 2nd car.

If the car is your only car. Get the RX-8. If you have the money for 2 cars, get the Z. (assuming you like the styling of both).

I have a Porsche Boxster as a second car. It is a great second car. But can NEVER be a only car... If you have a family.

If you have a family and only want one car the RX-8 wins as a TRUE sports car with 4 REAL seats!

I look at the 911 and I bougth the Boxster because like the 911, most sports cars have "fake" back seat and no trunk. At least the Boxster has TWO half trunks.

I will sell the Boxster and my Land Rover and purchase the RX-8. I get first pick at my dealership at MSRP!!! I cannot wait for the Detroit auto show for more info!!

Roachman

m477

droidekaus -

You sound like you're not satisfied with the car for some reason. Does the car feel heavy, or do you think that it isn't fun to drive for some reason? I'm just wondering, because I'm planning on buying a new car around summer 2003, and right now I'm on the fence between the Z and the 8. Although I guess I'll find out when I go for test drives...

BryanH

While the RX-8 does seem like a 4-door S2k in many ways, I think it's a common misconception that the RX-8 has similar torque characteristics. The RENESIS has a bit more torque overall, but the big thing is that it has a relatively flat torque curve from 3,000 RPM on up. So I don't think the '8 will need a super aggressive launch like the S2000.

There's also the gearing to consider. The S2000 has a *very* long 1st gear.

droidekaus

Can you direct me to the thread or source of info with the gear ratios? I'd be very interested in reading up on that.

Thanks!

BryanH

There was some in-depth discussion on gearing a while back, I think this is the thread: http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...ht=gear+ratios

It's all kindof over my head (actually I'm just too lazy to crunch the numbers ) so I skimmed over it. But I do know that a properly sorted first gear can make a world of difference for launching the car quickly.

I did a quick Search for "gear ratios" and came up with that thread, among others. Maybe try one for "gearing" and see what happens.

If you were looking for actual gear ratios on the '8, I don't believe those have been released yet.

Have a look at this thread for the torque curve: http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...ght=dyno+graph

Looks like the RENESIS is making 110ft-lbs at 1,000 RPM. My MR2 only makes 97ft-lbs at its peak of ~5,000 RPM!

droidekaus

m477,

I'm about 95% satisfied with my Z overall, and 110% satisfied with the driving experience. The Z is like a Japanese version of the Mustang GT with just enough brute force that it always feels like it's just about to get away from you, yet never does. Judicious second gear throttle in sharp turns brings the tail around nicely and with a slight sweep of the wheel, gets right back on course. As I mentioned before, the torque is abudant and I really enjoy mashing the throttle, ALL OF THE TIME. :D As such, I only get ~18 MPG combined city/hwy.

The 5% of NOT being satisfied boils down to my Nissan dealership experience and a couple of minor details. My dealer and other local dealers really suck when it comes to service. Nearly four months after I've taken delivery and these guys STILL cannot perform any service beyond an oil change without calling Nissan headquarters. There are *some* transmission problems appearing in the 6MT that require engineers from CA to fly out all over the country and replace trannys. Good thing is that Nissan's not f'ing around with fixes and just swapping trannys and clutches no questions asked. I hate the fact that I paid full MSRP for my car, gave the dealer a $3,500 profit and still get treated WORSE than some schmuck in a base model Sentra who paid a dollar over invoice. As far as what I don't like, the HIDEOUS door panels (minor issue, not a deal-breaker) for one, and the non-adjustable Camber, Caster and barely adjustable Toe-in. Within 5000 miles the insides of both of my front tires were feathered and although they are the notoriously sh*tty RE 040s, I'd like to see some attempt at diagnosising the problem on Nissan's part before I throw on a set of S-03s and potentially burn through those way too early.

I'm here because the RX-8 intrigues me. I like the overall design even though I do have issues with the rear of the greenhouse and the back glass. The front is KILLER, IMO and reminds a little of the new Enzo. I also come from a long line of Hondas and love free-revving, little engines. I would have bought either the S2K if it came in a true coupe, or the RSX-S if it would have been a bit closer to the ITR than it is now. There are details in the RX-8 that make it appear even more of a driver's car than first glance suggests. Details like the shape of the pedals, the throttle in particular. I noticed the other night that the throttle has almost an identical shape found in a mod that the 3rd-gen RX-7 owners were making to their own pedals to easier facilitate heel-toe shifting. That's cool, IMO.

I'm not jumping ship anytime soon, but I do hope you all don't mind me hanging around in the mean time. I'm not here to toot the horn for the Z, but if I do see info that is blatantly wrong, well, it'd be my duty to correct it.

Quick_lude

http://www.flyinmiata.com/tech/dyno_...99TvsS2000.pdf
The S2000 curve is pretty nice too.. Looks like 90% from 2500 rpm until redline..

BryanH

Hmm, I stand corrected. It seems everyone's been harping about the lack of torque in the S2000 so much, I thought it'd be less linear (well, there seems to be two planes of torque depending on whether you're on the cam or not). I bet the long first gear has even more to do with the difficulty of launching the car then.

Hmm, wild shot in the dark, might the rotary have fewer drivetrain losses with its fewer reciprocating parts and carbon fiber driveshaft?

This is one way mid-engined cars are advantaged... fewer drivetrain losses through their transaxles. This is (in part) how the 138hp MR2 Spyder can out-accelerate the 155hp Miata.

droidekaus

IIRC, that's "carbon-fiber reinforced" driveshaft. Nissan made a big to do about this as well in the Z and the benefits are NOT showing. Several dynos are reporting only ~230 RWHP which equates to ~20% drivetrain loss when SCC got 244 RWHP. WTF? I'm of the belief that Nissan owes me some ponies ala the '99 Cobra and Ford.

Don't put too much stock in that driveshaft just yet.

Buger

Hi Quick_lude,

I posted on this very same subject on the caranddriver forum last week and even used the same link that you quoted to look at the torque curve over 90%. Below is what can be determined:

http://www.flyinmiata.com/tech/dyno_...99TvsS2000.pdf
peak wheel torque: ... 139.0 ft-lbs
90% of peak: ......... 125.1 ft-lbs
range above 90%: ..... 6200 to 8600 = 2400 rpms or 27%

The tick marks on the dyno graph make it easy to determine the #s pretty accurately. I know there are some pretty *enthusiastic* s2000 people out there just like there are many *enthusiastic* rx-8 people out there. Despite the s2000 propaganda that is put out, it does not have 90% of its torque for 6400 rpms (8900 - 2500). Other sources give very similar numbers.

I also posted the below comparing the s2000 torque curve to the LS1 since some s2000 *enthusiasts* were saying that the s2000 had a wider powerband than the new LS1 corvette!!?

"As Cappy mentioned earlier, percentages of width are more significant to width in rpms. I assume your ~100% refers to 95% of peak torque since that is what percent seems to correlate with your rpm numbers.

I came up with 1650 LS1 rpms over 95% but using the numbers that you came up with still proves my point:

s2000
torque peak: ... 153
rev limit: ..... 9000? (could be higher but that would make s2000 #s look worse)
engine band: ... 8300 (9000 - 700)
95% or > tq: ... 27.7% (2300/8300)
90% or > tq: ... 33.7% (8600-5800 = 2800, 2800/8300)
80% or > tq: ... 79.5% (8900-2300 = 6600, 6600/8300)

2001 LS1
torque peak: ... 385
rev limit: ..... 6200
engine band: ... 5500 (6200 - 700)
95% or > tq: ... 29.1% (1600/5500)
90% or > tq: ... 51.5% (5780-2950 = 2830, 2830/5500)
80% or > tq: ... 88.7% (6200-1320 = 4880, 4880/5500)

As I mentioned previously, "Whatever numbers are used still show that the LS1 is in it's powerband earlier and for a greater percentage of its range than the s2000 engine. The f20c is a great technological achievement but that shouldn't blind people to appreciate that engines like the LS1 have their strong points too."

s2000
first gear speed >95% peak torque
6000 rpm = 28 mph
8300 rpm = 39 mph
39 - 28 = 11, s2000 is in 95% powerband 11 mph out of 42 in first gear

first gear speed >90% peak torque
5800 rpm = 27 mph
8600 rpm = 41 mph *I rounded mph up here*
41 - 27 = 14, s2000 is in 90% powerband 14 mph out of 42 in first gear

first gear speed >80% peak torque
2300 rpm = 11 mph *waldorf quoted 2500 rpm as start of 80%*
8900 rpm = 42 mph
42 - 11 = 31, s2000 is in 80% powerband 31 mph out of 42 in first gear

LS1
first gear speed >95% peak torque
3760 rpm = 32 mph
5410 rpm = 46 mph
46 - 32 = 14, LS1 corvette is in 95% powerband 14 mph out of 51 in first gear

first gear speed >90% peak torque
2950 rpm = 25 mph
5780 rpm = 49 mph
49 - 25 = 24, LS1 corvette is in 90% powerband 24 mph out of 51 in first gear

first gear speed >80% peak torque
1320 rpm = 11 mph
6000 rpm = 51 mph *note that 80% peak actually goes up to the rev limit of 6300*
51 - 11 = 40, LS1 corvette is in 80% powerband 40 mph out of 51 in first gear

You can see that adding gearing into the equation makes the powerband difference more noticable. While the s2000 > 90% powerband is 65% (33.7/51.5) less than the LS1, gearing makes the disadvantage bigger. The s2000 has only 58% (14 mph/24 mph) of the > 90% 1st gear powerband of the LS1 Corvette in the real world. My original point was that gearing an engine higher would effectively "squish" the torque curve horizontally. If the s2000 had a 8.2 rear diff instead of a 4.1, it will be geared to have twice the amount of torque (before losses etc.) but it's torque peak would be even peakier because the curve gets "squished" twice as much horizontally...

...Whatever the case, if people weren't tired of my posts before, I'm sure they are now. I didn't think that the concept of the LS1 having a wider powerband than the f20c would be so hard for some people to accept. I also didn't think that it would be so hard for some people to accept that a torque curve gives us more information than peak hp and peak torque (2 points on the curve). In my eyes, the horse has been officially declared dead. There is no need to beat it further."

Brian

Buger

Hi BryanH,

Perhaps you weren't wrong after all? See my previous post on this (although it is ridiculously long). Notice that the graph doesn't show the curve from 1000 but starts at around 2000 rpm. The s2000 torque curve starts low and has a peak from the low end cam around 2800 rpm, then another peak at around 6400 rpm from the high end cam. It is the high ratio gearing (compared to other engines) that makes the real world performance even peakier than it is.

Brian

Hercules

I'm in awe of Buger. Math is never my strongpoint but looking at numbers somehow makes me feel smarter

unemployedpimp

that back of the 350z is ugly!!